By Berman and Co.
House Passes Liability Protection Bill
Recently, the House passed the Personal Responsibility In Consumption Act--a bill that prevents individuals from filing suit against food retailers for causing a person's weight gain or obesity.
This bill, H.R. 554, passed by a vote 306 to 120 and awaits consideration by the Senate.
This is the second time the House has passed this civil liability protection bill. Last session, this proposal stalled in the Senate. With upcoming judicial confirmation hearings and pending spending bills, this proposal seems again set to halt in the Senate.
Background Information on Ignition interlocks
In order to clarify the issue, at the right is a FAQ sheet on interlock devices. Also, see the graphic explaining existing interlock provisions in each state.
What are ignition interlocks?
Ignition interlocks are in-car breathalyzers, which force a driver to prove his blood alcohol content (BAC) is below a preset limit before he can start his car. Most states set the limit for interlocks at 0.025 percent BAC--less than one-third the legal limit of 0.08 percent.
If a driver has eaten or drunk anything other than water or smoked within the past 20 minutes, the interlock could give a false reading and refuse to start. Imagine the problems that can cause in an emergency.
Once started, the driver must re-test while driving, creating a traffic safety hazard.
Don't interlocks keep drunk drivers off the road?
Actually, it's estimated that only about 10 percent of eligible offenders actually put interlocks on their car, and research suggests these drivers are the least likely to re-offend. Hard core offenders claim not to have a car, not to be able to afford interlocks, or just use another vehicle.
Even MADD board member Robert Voas, a huge proponent of interlocks, stated, "Studies suggest that a majority perhaps of those drivers who have interlocks on their vehicles also have another vehicle in the home."
This means that unless universal interlocks are mandated, it is almost impossible to create an effective interlock program, since offenders can always drive non-interlock cars.
What would "universal interlocks" entail?
These campaigns have already led legislators in New York, New Mexico and Oklahoma to propose mandating interlocks on every car in the state. That's not just for offenders, but for every driver.
Under current regulations, that would restrict every driver to a 0.025 percent BAC in most states, which some people would reach after just one drink. Universal interlocks would effectively end the on-premise consumption of adult beverages.
Why shouldn't first offenders get interlocks?
Activists are working to expand interlocks to first offenders to help make the devices more acceptable to the general public--a step down the road to universal use.
However, the research does not indicate that they improve traffic safety.
The most comprehensive study ever done on interlocks, which was conducted by the California Department of Motor Vehicles at the request of that state's Legislature, concluded, "The results of this outcome study clearly show that IIDs are not effective in reducing DUI convictions or incidents for first DUI offenders. Because there is no evidence that interlocks are an effective traffic safety measure for first DUI offenders, the use of the devices should not be emphasized."
Are there more effective technologies out there?
Yes. There are a number of options, ranging from DUI courts to intensive supervisory probation to home arrest to ankle bracelets that monitor an offender's alcohol intake. All of these strategies have been shown to yield great reductions in recidivism, while avoiding the problems of interlocks.
Isn't the idea of universal ignition interlocks unlikely to become a reality?
No. MADD and other groups are working to make interlocks acceptable to the general public. And several companies, including General Motors and Ford, are developing technologies to make interlocks standard in all cars. This means that multinational corporations now have a financial investment in promoting interlocks among the general public.
Minimum Wage Debates Heat Up on the Hill
Recently, the U.S. Senate rejected two proposals to increase the federal minimum wage.
Although a wage proposal was expected before the end of the year, Sen. Ted Kennedy's (D-MA) wage proposal was not expected as an amendment to the transportation spending legislation.
His amendment was to increase the minimum wage rate to $7.25 an hour, which he later reduced to $6.25.
In reaction to this proposal, Sen. Michael Enzi (R-WY) also proposed a Republican vehicle for a $ 6.25 wage increase with additional provisions to "sweeten the deal" for the business community.
By design, both amendments needed over 60 votes to be adopted. While the Kennedy amendment failed by a vote 47 to 51, the Enzi amendment failed by a vote 42 to 57.
This is the second time this year that Sen. Kennedy has attempted to attach a minimum wage increase to broader legislation, and that Republicans have responded with their own wage legislation.
Earlier this year, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) introduced the same Republican wage amendment as a supplement to Kennedy's proposal. Both times, the Republican legislation, opposed by the Democrats, permitted Republican Senators to vote in favor of a wage increase with the understanding that it would not receive the 60 votes required for passage.
In the final vote tally, four Republican Senators, who had earlier voted in opposition to any wage increase, supported the Enzi amendment. Some of this support may stem from appropriations leaders who wanted to show their general support for Republican-offered amendments. However, most of the support--for example, Sen. Arlen Specter's (R-PA)--seems to reflect the debates going on at the state level.
This year, there were 33 proposals in state legislatures to increase the minimum wage. As of Jan. 1, 2006, 17 states and three localities will have minimum wage rates above the federal level.
As a result, more federal legislators may support a higher starting wage to equalize differences with neighboring states. We saw these effects earlier this year when Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) introduced legislation to increase the minimum wage, noting "New York state business owners are at a competitive disadvantage with business owners in other states."
Wage debates in the states have also increased calls on Congress to address the minimum wage, as a way to take this issue off the states' agendas.
Although the minimum wage question is unlikely to come up again this year,
it is certain to receive further and more in-depth consideration in 2006.
And although House Republicans have managed to avoid a vote on the minimum wage, Acting Majority Leader Roy Blunt has not given the party assurance--as Majority Leader Tom Delay had--that the House would not consider a wage vote.
This, paired with the number of members representing areas with wage rates higher than the federal level, may provide a prime opportunity for wage advocates to win Congressional approval of a higher federal minimum wage.
Below is breakdown of the Republican offered amendment. If you would like a breakout on how Senators voted on last week's wage amendments, please feel free to contact Whitney Dodd at (202) 463-7100 or dodd@bermanco.com.
Republican Minimum Wage Amendment
The following provisions were included in Senator Enzi's minimum wage amendment:
1) Raise minimum wage by $1.10 over 18 months in two steps.
2) Permit family "flex-time" for workers.
3) Increase small business exemption from Fair Labor Standards Act.
4) Small business one-time paperwork errors relief.
5) Small business regulatory relief.
6) Minimum wage tip credit for restaurant workers (in states without tip credit only)
7) Small business tax relief.
Transportation Appropriations to Come Before the Senate
As we reported in last month's update, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) has indicated that he will try to resurrect his drunk driving mandate as an amendment to pending transportation appropriations legislation, HR 3058.
This legislation cleared the House this summer and the full Senate is set to consider it when they return from their 10-day break. We will provide a longer report for you on this issue next month when the schedule of debate is more concrete.
Washington D.C. Women Arrested with .03 percent Blood Alcohol Content
Recently, the Washington Post printed a story that underscores the threat to responsible social drinking.
The paper reported that last spring Debra Bolton was arrested after a casual evening that involved dinner and a glass of wine (see complete story on pg. 8 in this issue).
After pulling out of a parking lot without her headlights on, Ms. Bolten was pulled over by the police and asked if she had anything to drink that evening. When she responded positively, she was immediately pulled out of her car, subjected to a series of alcohol tests and arrested on one of the city's busiest streets.
Once at the station, officials conducted a proper breath exam twice only to reveal both times that her BAC level was at .03 percent--well below the .08 percent limit.
Regardless of the fact that Ms. Bolton exhibited responsible behavior, Washington D.C. officials cited a provision in local law that permits officers to arrest individuals with a BAC under .08 percent.
According to the arresting officer, "If you get behind the wheel of a car with any measurable amount of alcohol, you will be dealt with in D.C. We have zero tolerance... Anything above .01, we can arrest."
And in fact, the record shows that DC police do just that. Last year, 321 people were arrested for driving under the influence with BACs below .08 percent, while in 2003, 409 people were arrested.
The Washington Post article highlights the targeting of social drinkers--a trend that has been growing nationwide. Several states have provisions that permit officers to presume impairment at levels below the .08 percent threshold. Both Maryland and Virginia, for example, can arrest individuals with a BAC level as low as .05 percent.
In Florida, attorney Tom Wadley spent four years and thousands of dollars after being arrested at a roadblock--even though his BAC was less than one-fourth the legal limit.
In front of dozens of children and a television crew, he was forced to conduct a field sobriety test, then arrested--despite the fact that his breath tests registered .018 percent and .016 percent. He was still taken to jail and kept overnight.
This startling trend illustrates the further encroachment on an individual's right to safely and responsibly consume adult beverages before driving. Just this year, Utah enacted zero-tolerance legislation that set a .00 percent BAC threshold for individuals who have ever pled guilty or no-contest for a DUI.
With neo-prohibitionist groups actively promoting lower BAC thresholds, we expect several states to consider this issue during the next legislative session.
These debates give us an opportunity to trigger a public dialogue over policies that target responsible social drinkers. For more information on low BAC provisions, please contact Berman & Co. at (202) 463-7100.
Source: ABL Leader, December, 2005, published monthly by Continental Communications, 125 W. Granite St., Suite 102, Butte, MT 59701.